Pages

Friday, 28 October 2016

Okay, here's an example of how the internal plot-logic of Inferno works. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), the celebrated professor of religious symbology and iconography, awakes in hospital with a head-trauma from a bullet-wound and suffering intermittent hallucination-flashbacks. After hurriedly escaping an assassin who comes to finish the job, he discovers he's carrying a flashlight/projection image of Botticelli's famous Map of Hell painting, inspired by Dante's Inferno: the image of the netherworld which has (and the script even says this) defined how humanity has envisioned Hell for the last five centuries.

As the famous and revered expert looks at the famous and much-studied painting, he notices a letter, "R" has been branded into the leg of one of the figures in the painting on one of the levels of Hell. "That's not part of the original", he gasps. His sidekick and co-adventurer, Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) then pipes up "Look, there's another letter on a figure in the layer above, too!". They realise that there's a letter on each level of Hell in the painting, left as a clue for Robert to decypher. Fair enough.

Then they suddenly notice more additional lettering, this time at the bottom of the painting. Not scattered about as above, just a regular line of text curved around the pivotal globe. In instantly recognisable English. That they didn't notice when they were picking out individual letters from the hubbub of the layers above.

ThenRobert says "And the layers of Hell are in the wrong order, too! Someone's swapped them around!". Now, if you take a gander at the painting, you'll see that due to the concentric nature of the levels, you wouldn't just be able to cut and paste this around in Photoshop. There'd not only be a lot of content to lose, there'd be loads to magically generate for the upper, wider levels too. It's going to look very different from the original.

So, our learned lecturer on religious symbolism has been looking at one of the most definitive, cryptic artworks of all time for about four minutes before realising that everything's in the wrong order, is made-up, and has a message written on it.

Now, you could put this down to the character having recently sustained a consciousness-altering cranial injury. Or you could put it down to Dan Brown's writing*1. They appear to be the same thing…

Well, The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons, I imagine.Full disclosure, I hadn't seen either of those two films until last weekend. Despite Ron Howard's publicity-trail assertions that Inferno can be enjoyed as a standalone movie, I figured I needed to watch the earlier entries for the sake of context if nothing else. Yeah, they're not great, are they?Although from a certain point of view, Ron was absolutely right. As Inferno unravels through its many scenes of exposition, setups and twists, it feels like a kid who's been told to read their homework in front of the class, except they haven't done their homework so they try to ad-lib a story as they go, quickly descending into a context-free rollercoaster of narrative incoherence. In that respect, you can absolutely watch Inferno without seeing the earlier films; it will make just as much sense…

Well, Robert's hallucinatory-flashbacks are one thing, but the accompanying Concussion-Cam™ which punctuates those scenes threatened to induce a migraine before the film hit the ten-minute mark. If you fancy that on a massive screen, go for it…

Clearly, I am the wrong person to answer that question.

No. It's not even the best film in this series.
And like I said, they're not great.

No, because if you enjoy this one then you're probably a fan of the previous two movies and I'll (genuinely) enjoy your explanation as to why they're not slapdash drivel.

There isn't.

Level 1: This film's got Jyn Erso in it.

*1 Although Mr Brown wrote the source-novel, David Koepp is credited with penning the screenplay here. Although I can only imagine such a pivotal plot-device is lifted from the original book. If you know otherwise, please tell me; I'd hate to be taking the piss out of Dan Brown's literary prowess unduly…

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Thursday, 27 October 2016

Oh, Tom. When a Cruise-produced action vanity-project doesn't even work as a Cruise-produced action vanity project, you know the genre's really in trouble. The largely unnecessary sequel to 2012's live-action cartoonJack Reacher limps into the cinematic graveyard-slot without even bearing the exuberant ridiculousness of its predecessor…

The film opens with ex Military Police Major Jack living a transient, spartan existence. With little except for the clothes on his back, Reacher thumbs lifts from city to city, righting the wrongs of corporate and state/military corruption he finds along the way like a violent, narcissistic version of The Littlest Hobo. When one of his trusted contacts from his old unit is framed on charges of espionage and treason, Jack breaks cover to clear her name and expose the culprits. To complicate matters further, the case uncovers a 15yr old girl who may or may not be Reacher's surprise daughter. Either way, he has to protect her while taking care of business...

Oh, Tom.

Relying heavily on the audience already being familiar and/or in love with the character of Reacher, the screenplay wastes little time explaining the setup. Jack's great, everybody adores him except for the moustache-twirling villains, sub-villains and inept henchmen. He pouts, frowns and only breaks people's faces when provoked of course (and always in a 12A-friendly manner). Worse still, the inclusion of the daughter-archetype (who is obviously a flashing target for the film's villains) nudges the film towards being Taken-lite.

You'd imagine that a movie where the main supporting character is a 30-something female army major (who's had years of patronising misogyny hampering her career, and explicitly states so), would have a little self-awareness when it comes to gender politics. Well, Never Go Back's plot features a military contracting company by the name of Para-Source, which is pronounced approximately half the time throughout the film as 'Paris Whores'. I don't know, either. There's also the moment during Jack's arrest in the first act when he needs to get his female attorney out of the room so that he can engineer his escape. He does this by telling her to go and get him a sandwich. Literally. Incredible. But during the scene where Cobie Smudlers is wandering round a motel room in her bra for no real reason, Tom's got his shirt off for no real reason, too. Yay, equality.

I can see why Smulders signed up support here, but a movie like this is really something you should be doing on your way down the ladder, not up. Still, it's either that or carving out a secondary career in sub-standard horror movies, I suppose.

Above all that though, JR:NGB's biggest problem is how boring it all is. Any character with a name is narratively-invincible until the third act, and even then it's just a matter of ticking boxes until the credits roll. Grindingly pedestrian, even Cruise looks like he doesn't want to be there; and this is his messianic fantasy, remember.

After a stoically emotional coda, we leave Jack meandering his way down the highway, thumb outstretched, on his way to another adventure.

I think there could be one buried in the rooftop fight-sequence, but let's side with nope.

Level 2: Cruise starred in 1985's Legend of course, alongside Tim 'Voice of Palpatine in the later episodes of The Clone Wars' Curry.

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Wednesday, 26 October 2016

And there was me being so distracted by the upcoming Rogue One that Marvel's latest entry into their ongoing canon sort of snuck up on me. Sort of.

The new offering sticks largely to the format as expected (why gamble when you've got no sign of a losing hand?), but is more rooted in the mystical side of the continuity. One where armoured suits still exist, but focusing on the magic that's merely science the characters don't yet understand. Despite the frequent brain-bending visuals, the film never quite goes full-Inception, although it does often feel like M.C. Escher got drunk and rebooted Harry Potter. Structurally, the narrative is on solidly familiar ground*1, which helps to keep everything flowing smoothly.

Benedict Cumberbatch and Tilda Swinton shine in their roles as the eponymous Doctor and The Ancient One respectively. Chiwetel Ejiofor and Benedict Wong make the most of their supporting slots, as does Mads Mikkelsen. Rachel McAdams puts in a good turn as far as she's able, but feels slightly wasted in the film, to be honest.

As mentioned, Doctor Strange takes place within Marvel's Cinematic Universe framework of course*2, and while references to the other movies and characters are fleeting, they do feel like they're being presented to the audience as a reward/reminder, a little. Tonally, the film lies somewhere between the dimension-hopping disorientation of Thor: The Dark World and the humorous stellar-agoraphobia of Guardians Of The Galaxy. Director Scott Derrickson balances the action, danger and sense of fun well enough, although any philosophy the film might have been aiming for seems truncated by a run-time of just under two hours. Although after the lengthy and action-packed continuity admin of Civil War, this movie is a nice change of pace for the series.

But these are just my first impressions. Doctor Strange is a movie which is going to take a few viewings to properly sink in…

The business-end:

• Is there a Wilhelm Scream? I didn't hear one.
• Is there a Stan Lee cameo? Yes.
• Is there a mid-credits scene? Yes.
• Is there a post-credits scene? Yes.

Other movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Inception.

Yep. In 3D too, if you can bear the light-loss.

It does, but I'd have liked it to make that achievement with about an extra 20-30 minutes of run-time.

In terms of the cast, no, but director Scott Derrickson is better known for his mass-market horror fare, so most likely yes.

You'll have to justify yourself.

I didn't hear one.
But let's not rule it out.

Level 1: Galen Erso is in this.

*1 And speaking of familiar, composer Michael Giacchino is on score-duties here and seems to have loved his own Star Trek theme so damned much that he's retooled it as the recurring motif in Doctor Strange. Don't worry lads, it's only going to be geeks watching this; they won't notice…

*2 It's also interesting to note that the ever-evolving Marvel Studios ident at the beginning of the film has now dispensed with the flickering comic-panels (other than the first couple of seconds) and is comprised of their MCU screen properties. While they can hardly deny their comic-book roots, is this a sign that the company now views the cinematic stories as the definitive versions? Discuss.

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Tuesday, 25 October 2016

As ever, October is the home of the movies which are high-profile enough to boast A-listers and respected character-actors, but not quite brash enough to weather the Summer or Winter marketplace. And slipping neatly into that bracket is Gavin O'Connor's The Accountant, the story of Christian Wolff (Ben Affleck), a mathematical whizz who runs an accountancy-firm by day and carries out conveniently-moralistic High End Security Work™ during his down-time.

The key plot-mechanic here is that Wolff displays Asperger's Syndrome / High Functioning Autism (while the script tries to shy away from specifically categorising its protagonists exact condition, everything points to that diagnosis). With many other directors and/or actors, the handling of the lead character's Asperger's would have felt more exploitative. Affleck keeps this to an impressive minimum, given that the behavioural quirks his adult-self displays have more to do with harsh parental upbringing than his condition. Not that he suffers an abusive childhood as such, but the film's regular flashbacks certainly show a gruelling one.

When a routine corporation-audit uncovers more than it should, Wolff finds his primary whistle-blower (and by association, himself) targeted by the people who were set to profit from the irregularities. What follows is a game of cat-and-mouse that never quite lives up to the intrigue or intensity that the trailer promises. The Accountant has some truly magnificent moments, but they're heavily padded by a just-above-average action thriller. Affleck's really the attraction here and even so, this probably isn't his best work. Part of the beauty of his performance is that the audience never quite gets to know his character properly. It's in-keeping with the Wolff's issues, but this is also the film's downfall; it's difficult to side with an unpredictable killing-machine, no matter how funny and self-effacing he can be.

Support comes in the form of Anna Kendrick, John Lithgow, Jeffrey Tambor, JK Simmons, Jon Bernthal and Cynthia Addai-Robinson; each giving fine performances, but you know that any film containing all of them should be absolutely on-fire. The Accountant seems happy to smoulder for a couple of hours, crackling and sparking only when Affleck's on-screen. At over two-hours, the film unevenly paced, but that comes down more to the writing table than the editing-suite. As much as I enjoyed this, I don't think I'd get any more out of watching it again.

Make no mistake, The Accountant isn't a challenging or provocative study of the Autistic spectrum, it's is an action movie. And as the story of a rich, troubled, highly intelligent vigilante with a formidable armoury and strong moral-compass, it makes intriguingcomparison-piece for Affleck's forthcoming solo-stint as Gotham's finest…

Well, The Accountant's got a lightsaber in it, in Wolff's lockup. But since that's clearly a Master Replicas version, let's go for Level 2: Jeffrey Tambor stars, and he rocked up in a 1991 episode of The Golden Girls alongside Bea 'Ackmena' Arthur...

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Saturday, 22 October 2016

Because if there's one thing everyone wants more than Shia LaBeouf, it's Shia LaBeouf sporting a mullet and pony-tail combination set, armed with a moral compass that would make D*nald Tr*mp nod approvingly*1, right?

Trapped in a life that's only just one step up from a trailer-park, Star (Sasha Lane) yearns for more. She doesn't know what exactly, but a chance encounter with Jake (Shia LaBeouf) and a group of disparate young travellers selling magazine subscriptions from town to town sees her take a punt on a new path. But as the pecking order of the collective becomes apparent, Star has to reconcile what she's left behind with what she can meaningfully gain from her new surroundings…

First things first: for a road movie, American Honey sure takes its time. Not its time in getting started, just in deciding where it's going. Like an extended journey with people you largely don't like and none of them have remembered to bring a map but they're loaded with more bad hip-hop than you can shake a stick at. It never bored or annoyed me, but the thought occurred on more than one occasion that a film this damned long should really have more content (for reference, you could watch the rise and fall of Tony Montana and still have a whole minute's change).

And It's a brave cinematographer who makes a movie in 3:4 aspect-ratio in this day and age. Braver still when the entire film is shot on a hand-held camera and jump-cut edited together. This often feels like watching someone's home-video footage, especially in the car-interior scenes, although I don't necessarily mean that as a compliment. While everyone's relatively comfortable on camera, there's a lack of direction to these group scenes both figuratively and cinematically (although not literally, as the people-carrier is moving undeniably forwards, I'll give it that). On top of that, the mumbled dialogue (which often has all the hallmarks of improvised lines performed by non-actors) is one thing, but combine that with an atrocious sound-mix when there's anything other than mumbled dialogue and you'll be praying for subtitles by the half-hour mark.

But on the plus side (for all my moaning before and after this paragraph, it's a fascinating movie), the camera finds the landscape and wildlife of America far more interesting than the cast, and a Peter Pan / Lost Boys theme peeks its head through from time to time*2, enough to be intriguing, although it really isn't developed the way it could be.

At its core though, I just didn't really get the film. I didn't feel excluded by what was happening, but there was a cultural gap I just couldn't cross. As well as the characters selling what I'm assuming were entirely non-existent magazine subscriptions, the setup itself was something I found hard to relate to. As much as Star is a sympathetic character, the problem (for me) could be that the closest we have in the UK to these groups is those packs of cause-hopping charity muggers that roam the high-streets with clipboards and annoying personalities. The ones I systematically blank or avoid without fail. This film certainly didn't endear me to the mindset, although I'm not sure it's meant to, to be honest.

I should probably have liked American Honey more*3 (in fact, I know I should), but the aspects I enjoyed were outweighed by the ones I either didn't or just didn't get. Much like the central character's journey, the film ambles along without rules or responsibility. It's something to be applauded in theory, but I just couldn't relax when I was expecting someone to be murdered for most of the movie. Although the film occasionally strays into dark quarters, it never lingers there too long and there doesn't seem to be any moral or narrative consequence of it happening. I'd even fine with the noncommittal ending if it hadn't followed a noncommittal story.

I know I'm missing something obvious and massive, but what's with the recurring insect-theme? Answers in the comments, please.

I think my favourite bit could be the drugged-up weirdo*4, sleepwalking around a parking lot and mumbling about the spice-mines of Kessel. As Star Wars references go, it's hard to beat and something we don't even get in Kevin Smith's movies…

All of the unease of murdery road-trip movies, but little of the drama.

It's shot in handheld, 3:4 aspect-ratio.
With the best will in the world, it's not designed for the cinema.

*1 Yeah, I know that Shia is an Actor and he's Acting. But we both know that Shia's kinda troubled off-the-camera, too. It doesn't make for easy-watching

*2 Although with the lead character being called Star and shots of the group jumping through a makeshift bonfire, the film arguably owes less to the Peter Pan mythos than it does to the actual Lost Boys movie itself. Another reason I kept expecting someone to be killed, imminently.

*3 And y'know, I like Lady Antebellum as much as the next guy (maybe a little more, actually), but when you specifically namecheck their song which is also the title of the film in act one, then pretend to resist playing it until five minutes before the end? That shit seems shoehorned, no end.

*4 In fact, I assume that she was drunk or drugged-up, but for a lot of the film I couldn't tell who was engaging in substance-abuse and who was just vulnerable and with learning-difficulties. In a film like this it could be either, frankly, and the fact that it isn't really explored at all is worrying in itself...

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.